Book 1: Man & Woman, Boy & Girl: The differentiation and dimorphism of gender identity from conception to maturity by Money & Ehrhardt
Hey GPT4 please summarize and highlight the key criticisms
This is the first of six books recommended by GPT4 for understanding gender identity theory
Summary:
"Man & Woman, Boy & Girl: The differentiation and dimorphism of gender identity from conception to maturity" is a seminal work published in 1972 by John Money and Anke A. Ehrhardt. The book examines the development of gender identity, the differences between biological sex and gender, and the factors that influence the formation of gender identity from conception to adulthood.
The authors argue that biological sex (determined by chromosomes, gonads, and genitalia) is distinct from gender identity (an individual's self-conception as male, female, or another category). They emphasize that gender identity is not solely determined by biology but is also influenced by a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal, environmental, and social factors.
Money and Ehrhardt introduce the concept of "gender role," which refers to the socially prescribed expectations and behaviors associated with a particular gender. They argue that individuals are socialized into their gender roles through a process called "gender typing," which begins early in life and continues throughout development.
The book also discusses various intersex conditions (now more commonly referred to as "differences of sex development" or DSDs), which occur when an individual's biological sex characteristics do not align with typical male or female patterns. The authors use these cases to illustrate the complexity of the relationship between biological sex and gender identity, as well as to highlight the role of social factors in shaping an individual's gender identity.
In summary, "Man & Woman, Boy & Girl" is an influential work that helped to establish the distinction between biological sex and gender identity, emphasizing the multifaceted nature of gender development and the roles of both biological and social factors in shaping an individual's gender identity.
Key criticisms:
Overemphasis on social factors: Critics argue that Money and Ehrhardt placed too much emphasis on the role of socialization in shaping an individual's gender identity, often downplaying the influence of biological factors. This has led to accusations that their work inadvertently supports a social determinism perspective, which underestimates the role of biology in gender identity formation.
The case of David Reimer: One of the most widely cited criticisms stems from the case of David Reimer, a child who was raised as a girl after a botched circumcision damaged his penis. Money used this case to support his theory that gender identity was largely determined by socialization. However, Reimer later identified as male and struggled with severe psychological issues throughout his life, which led many to question the validity of Money's theories. The case has been used to highlight the potential harm that can result from making irreversible decisions about a child's gender based on social factors alone.
Binary gender framework: Money and Ehrhardt's work is largely based on the traditional binary gender framework, which classifies individuals as either male or female. Critics argue that this framework is too restrictive and does not adequately account for the diversity of gender identities and expressions, such as non-binary, genderqueer, or genderfluid individuals.
Essentialist views: Although Money and Ehrhardt acknowledged the role of both biological and social factors in shaping gender identity, some critics argue that their work still contains essentialist assumptions, such as the belief that there are innate and immutable differences between men and women. These assumptions have been challenged by later theories, such as queer theory and social constructionism, which emphasize the fluidity and variability of gender identities.
Ethical concerns: Money's work has been criticized on ethical grounds, particularly in relation to his clinical practices and the case of David Reimer. Critics argue that his approach to treating individuals with intersex conditions or gender identity issues was often overly intrusive and potentially harmful, and that it prioritized social conformity over the well-being of the individuals involved.